Man-made global warming will “compound” the devastation wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, according to an article on Sunday in Popular Science.
“Experts say that climate change will likely compound the problem,” writes Jeremy Deaton.
“Soaring temperatures will either compel people wanting relief to go outside, where they could get infected, or the pandemic will force people to stay indoors, where they could swelter. Both the pandemic and extreme heat pose a mortal risk to the elderly and the infirm.”
Despite the laughable predictions of “experts” in trying to model consequences of the pandemic, climate change alarmists continue to cling to opinions of unnamed climate gurus with reverential devotion.
“It won’t be possible to determine the role of climate change until after the season has passed, experts say,” Mr. Deaton writes, without explaining how the role of climate change can be determined afterward.
“Much of the country can expect unusually high temperatures this summer,” Deaton notes, and the American northeast, “which has been hit hard by the coronavirus, faces an especially high risk of warmer weather.”
Deaton does acknowledge that “there is some preliminary evidence that sunlight, heat, and humidity could slow the spread of COVID-19,” but he immediately moves to suggest that the disadvantages must certainly outweigh the benefits.
One thing the writer fails to mention is that COVID-19 is classified as an “influenza-like disease” and as such is likely to mimic the flu in important ways. There is a “flu season,” which ends with the onset of warmer weather, and thus, relatively few people come down with the flu in the summertime.
In this case, warmer weather — whether caused by “climate change” or not — is likely to be a blessing rather than a curse.
But this would not sit well with alarmists because it flies in the face of a fundamental premise of the climate cult: “warming temperatures cannot benefit humanity and therefore must be battled.”
This axiom is not based on science, of course, but on a deeply held belief. It is a dogma that must not be questioned, rather than a conclusion that has been rationally proven.
Read more at Breitbart
Am I reading this right? Going outside will be bad, and staying inside will be just as bad? What exactly is the alternative? A cruise to Mars? Hop into a parallel universe?
Well according to screwballs like Paul Ehrlich the Earth would be dead by now our beaches would be cover with dead fish if anyone were to beieve a thing that idiot ever said or wrote in his fake books THE POPULATION BOMB and the POPULATION EXPLOSION
What if both warmings and coolings are merely an ongoing phenomenon, unrelated to the trace gas CO2 ?
More than a century ago commodity speculators in England noticed a correlation between some crop yields and sun spot activity. That correlation was consistent enough to attract hedging and speculating. We all understand that correlation is not necessarily related to causation, but in this case it was not unreasonable to suspect that the sun has more than a little to do with crop yield.
The influence of overall cloud coverage on temperature has been a concern of climatologists but direct measure of cloud cover was not even a possibility before satellites were launched. It was simpler to dismiss that consideration by instead
suspecting that the “climate” itself was responsible for cloud cover.
However, more than two decades ago Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, and his associates (an astrophysicist and an oceanographer) proposed a new climate theory which did not involve CO2. Svensmark claimed that warmings and coolings were brought on by the variation in sun activity. Svensmark claimed that sun activity has an impact on the relatively constant stream of cosmic rays which otherwise penetrate the lower atmosphere. During periods when more cosmic rays penetrate the lower atmosphere that additional penetration leads to more cloud coverage. (CERN has long since confirmed that cosmic rays can influence cloud cover.)
The cycles of sun activity result in changes in cloud coverage. Cloud coverage, in turn, determines how much sun radiation reaches the earth’s surface (and how much is deflected back to space) and that leads to cycles of both global coolings and warmings.
The overall average level of cloud coverage determines whether there is global warming or global cooling. A more dramatic way to put it is that the universe influences our climate. Recently (December 2019) sun activity dropped significantly. The prior low in sun activity was about 11 years earlier, in 2008, but not as significant as the inactivity level in 2019. If this new inactive sun cycle persists for the usual decade or more, it will result in a cyclic increase in the average cloud coverage which, according to Svensmark, should bring on another cooling period.
Recently Don Easterbrook, a well known geologist, published a comprehensive study (an entire book) which makes use of available data covering the past 800,000 years. That extended duration includes the last few ice ages. (Each ice age is now referred to as a “glaciation” because evidently the past 65 million years show a longer term cooling!) Easterbrook’s book title says it all: “The Solar Magnetic Cause of Climate Changes and Origin of the Ice Ages”.
The conclusions in Easterbrook’s book are clearly not wishy-washy. He has put his reputation on the line, probably recognizing that the usual peer-review by a like-minded scientist at the adjacent desk would end with the results being filed away in that special black hole containing all the other liberal unmentionables.
Easterbrook’s firm conclusions (page 176) follow:
“EVERY cool period was characterized by low sunspot numbers, indicating low strength of the sun’s magnetic field, and high production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon, indicating a high intensity of cosmic rays. EVERY warm period was coincident with high sunspot numbers and low production rates of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon. Thus, it is unequivocally clear that climate changes, large and small, are driven by fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field.”
While Easterbrook claims that his data and conclusions stand, whether or not Svensmark’s theory survives, his results appear to further validate Svensmark’s theory.
Alarmists insist that neither the Medieval Warming Period nor the subsequent Little Ice Age were global. Easterbrook’s analysis implies that all prior warmings were caused by sun activity. If true, the data itself demonstrates that ALL prior warmings were, by definition, global events.
Alarmist modelers have no ready explanation for any future cooling. Even with no further CO2 increase their theory demands that the current warming level must persist, at least until some of the CO2 is re-absorbed back into the biomass. There are other conflicts with the alarmist position, including a three decade cooling from 1945-1975 as CO2 continued to increase, and also the IPCC acknowledged “hiatus” in temperature during the 2000s as CO2 continued its increase.
The greenhouse gas theory, used as justification by alarmists, apparently as a substitute for evidence, must in any case be accompanied by a necessary condition. When the GHG application involves the open atmosphere there must also be an accompanying “signature”, a warmer region about 10km above the tropics. Despite decades of radiosondes that necessary “hot spot” has never been found and it’s not a matter of missing data. Actual temperatures have been recorded both above and below 10km. The two attempts by CAGW proponents (Sherwood and Santer) claiming to explain that missing “hot spot” both ignore the existing data and further exacerbate that dubious act with speculation about what happened to the required “hot spot”. The open atmosphere is not a greenhouse. Satellites detect heat escaping to space. This fact, along with the missing “hot spot” have also apparently been filed away in that same unmentionable black hole, and not only by alarmists, but also with the concurrence of our agenda-driven major news media.
It is amazing that most of the major news media science writers ignore what appears to be obvious implications of Easterbrook’s study. The MWP and earlier warmings were global (and, as Phil Jones, an early proponent of anthropogenic-caused warming has publicly stated, if the MWP was global it’s a different ballgame. Jones’ uncertainty indicates that the alarmists do not have much in the way of supporting evidence.) Actually it is not difficult these days to also demonstrate from existing MWP studies (@co2science.org) that the MWP was global.
Any credible climatologist should by now feel obligated to investigate and verify or rebut Easterbrook’s data. If that data is valid the conclusions are a no-brainer. ALL prior warmings (and coolings) were global and brought on by sun activity. Since there is no evidence that CO2, a trace gas, has ever had any impact on our global temperature, why should we even suspect that the cause of our most recent warming, beginning in about 1975, was related to CO2 increase? The GHG theory, insofar as its applicability in the open atmosphere, is not settled.
Increasing CO2 level remains an important concern but that is unrelated to warming, or cooling, or any other actions possibly brought on by variations in global temperature such as sea level rise, hurricanes, tornados, droughts, floods or your grandpa’s arthritis.
It is likely the cosmos, rather than human activity, which remains in charge of our climate. CO2 concern is best left to such disciplines as health researchers and botanists rather than climatologists.
Has Popular Science decided to fill the void left by Mad Magazine?
Just another loose nut falling from the tree yes these Climate Alarmists are total screwballs
I am with you, these people haven’t got a clue what is going on in the world. Question!? is there anything we can do to get rid of those morons? It would be nice.